If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Remember the crazy guy who said he'd start shooting people if his second amendment rights were infringed? Yeah, the state of Tennessee just suspended his handgun carry permit   (livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 115
    More: Followup, Tenn, Department of Safety, James Yeager, handguns, handgun carry  
•       •       •

11655 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Jan 2013 at 9:11 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-01-11 08:58:18 PM
10 votes:
Good.
2013-01-11 08:35:06 PM
10 votes:
Good.
2013-01-11 08:48:13 PM
8 votes:
It's a start.

All these assholes are making the two or three dozen responsible gun owners in this country look bad.
2013-01-11 08:41:59 PM
8 votes:
Does this count as the "one more inch" that will start his killing spree?

If I were his mailman (you know, evil federal employee), I think I'd skip his street.
2013-01-11 10:49:18 PM
7 votes:

joness0154: AdmirableSnackbar: joness0154: For gun violence, at least here in Chicago, it's mostly gang members taking care of each other. I don't have a problem with that

And that's why nobody should take you seriously or listen to anything you have to say on the subject of guns.

Because I don't care about the scum of our society taking care of each other? Please, enlighten us on why we should give a damn.


Antipathy towards any violence is the sign of a deranged mind. Your approval of violence by and against those of whom you disapprove precludes you from holding rational ideas or conversations about meaningful reform to prevent violence against those of whom you do approve.
2013-01-11 09:18:44 PM
7 votes:
Nothing warms my heart more than watching an Internet Toughguy turn into a whiny biatch when they learn that their words have consequences.
2013-01-11 08:55:50 PM
6 votes:
I bet he considers himself a safe, sane, rational and responsible gun owner.
2013-01-11 11:20:30 PM
5 votes:
Gun licensing should be like automobile licensing, only stricter.

Written and practical tests.
Bans for medical conditions.
Special insurance.
Annual registration with a fee.
Graduated system depending on the power of the weapon.
Some weapons restricted to specialists.
2013-01-11 09:17:25 PM
5 votes:

violentsalvation: I don't think you'll find many pro-gun people on fark who have a problem with this.


If you frequent any of the gun boards on the internet, you'll find that this guy is pretty-much universally reviled. He's a major d-bag that even the gun community doesn't want to associate with.

You folks trying to portray him as a spokesman for the gun community need to find a narrower brush.
2013-01-11 08:46:31 PM
5 votes:
Patriots, please don't stop recording your thoughts and posting it on youtube.
2013-01-11 09:32:38 PM
4 votes:
Dear Mr. Yeager,

You're not helping.

Sincerely,
The rest of us that support the right to bear arms.

Seriously, it's nutcases like this that make people afraid of gun owners. There are lots and lots of responsible, kind, sensible, intelligent folks out there that happen to own guns. They're not a stereotype - they're just gun owners. Then, there's this moron, the kind of guy that stuffs himself into the stereotype, and then runs his mouth off, validating the very stereotype that makes other gun owners wince.
2013-01-11 09:31:45 PM
4 votes:
Can I point out the cognitive dissonance I'm registering?

The posts on this thread expressing 'good' in response to his permit being revoked are happily accepting that those are legitimate consequences for the content of his 'speech'. And even though most of you misunderstand what free speech applies to, you rightly prize it.

So riddle me this: what leads people to accept curbs and limits on the 1st Amendment, but to freak out if anyone suggests limitations on the 2nd Amendment?

/btw, my response to the permit being revoked is: good.
// my second response is to turn the interwebs to a local Tennessee feed- I expect something bad will happen.
/// Good + Bad = x, solve for x
2013-01-11 09:13:49 PM
4 votes:
I don't think you'll find many pro-gun people on fark who have a problem with this.
2013-01-11 08:46:07 PM
4 votes:
Good. Keep the guns out of the hands of nutjobs.
2013-01-11 11:56:51 PM
3 votes:

Amos Quito: So VIOLENT CRIME in the UK (as of 2009) was 4.29 times HIGHER than in the gun-laden US.


Look at the criteria for "violent crime" in each country.

Hint - in the UK, it's spitting on someone.
2013-01-11 10:30:12 PM
3 votes:

Meanniss: dbaggins: For example: I'd consider someone a sane gun owner if they could propose something we could change that would make gun massacres less regular, or end all together. Or maybe lower the rate of gun violence in general. Something actually involving guns.

I own a gun I am ok with closing the gun show loophole. Background checks and ban high cap magazines. I with holding judgement on an assault weapons ban till I see actual legislation that gets to a vote.


Lib here. That would be enough for me. Thanks.

All I want is a little more sanity and a little less synthetic testosterone.
2013-01-11 10:08:35 PM
3 votes:
This is a 2nd Amendment solution: Nutjob was "Well Regulated" right out of his guns.

He should be happy. The 2nd Amendment at work right here. He's a huge fan. Maybe he shows emotion differently than some because he joy seems a lot like anger and endless butthurt too me.
2013-01-11 09:22:27 PM
3 votes:
This guy's a "firearm instructor" who let his license to instruct lapse. That guy who patrolled his kid's school in uniform wasn't in the military anymore OR the rank he said he was. Joe "The Plumber" was a licensed plumber. What the hell is wrong with these kinda of people that they think attention whoring won't lead people to find out they're frauds?
2013-01-11 09:21:28 PM
3 votes:
So a man who is allowed to not only own a firearm, but to carry a concealed one as well, is concerned about his second amendment rights?

community.spiceworks.com
2013-01-11 09:17:15 PM
3 votes:
This is a fine example of existing legislation getting the job done.
2013-01-12 09:18:24 AM
2 votes:
They want Obama to come after their guns.
2013-01-12 03:57:08 AM
2 votes:

BronyMedic: So, uh. What are you home defending with a 30 round magazine? Or Hunting? You got that many coyotes and varmints on your lawn? Didn't Call of Medal: Duty Warfare teach you that hip firing was a bad thing? Defend to me the need for civilians to own a high capacity magazine who's only legitimate use is to reduce the need to reload during firefights?


Why?  I agree with a ban on high capacity magazines.

The only animal I've shot in the past year was a mouse and that was with a pellet pistol that didn't have any ammo in it.  Why?  Because he came out of a vent and sat down while I was putting a new C02 cartridge in, and between stepping on him or shooting him with a blast of air, I went with the option that had as little contact as possible.  I'm terrified of mice, which is a source of endless amusement for my wife.  It had the desired effect.  I live on a retired farm and there are mice everywhere.  You can't let them go - it's like asking for trouble later.  I have no problem with people, but mice are the enemy, and they must be stopped.  Fortunately, poison and traps are effective and are my preferred method of elimination.

I don't hunt.  I don't collect guns.  The picture I posted is a pellet rifle.  I have a .22 Henry lever action rifle that hasn't ever fired on anything more dangerous than an aluminum can or a paper target.  I don't own any handguns, but I've fired a few at the local range.  I'm living in the middle of nowhere and people come on my property all the time (usually hunters) with guns and I don't feel I need an arsenal at home to protect myself.  Quite honestly, I'm not really a gun advocate.  I understand how they work, and what the differences are, and I'll fire my friend's guns at the range.  That's about it.  I don't want a handgun in the house because I don't see the point - I'd keep it unloaded and locked in a safe anyway.

But I can't abide stupidity, and that's what most of this debate is about.  Semiautomatic handguns kill more people in a week than "assault rifles" kill in a year.  In terms of human damage, this:

img59.imageshack.us

is more dangerous than this:

img850.imageshack.us

So I feel the debate has gone off the rails, because no one is really interested in reducing gun violence.  If they were, they'd ban handguns, which are easily concealable, easy to carry into situations where your judgement is likely to be compromised, and easy to fire repeatedly.  You can't wander all day with a rifle in your backpack, but you sure as shiat can carry a pistol.  I find the whole term "assault rifle" ridiculous because it has been defined by the press as anything that looks dangerous whether it really is or not.

I would like the gun show loophole closed permanently, I would like background checks to be more extensive, and I would like a nationwide licensing and registration system for gun ownership.  Our gun problem isn't with responsible gun owners, it's with criminals getting their hands on guns.  Closing the gun show loophole will take care of part of that, and registration will take care of the rest.  I believe that the registered database should be government and citizen controlled but private (not open to FOIA requests), and that registered gun owners should be allowed to buy whatever the fark they want in exchange. For existing guns, if they aren't registered, I think it should be a federal misdemeanor that can be wiped once the guns are registered.  It will narrow down the pool of weapons that are untraceable and aid in closing the gun show loophole.

I believe these are reasonable requests.  I also believe that if Timmy from down the street is a responsible gun nut, then he should be allowed to buy weapons that he uses responsibly.  Even the scary ones.
2013-01-12 12:10:48 AM
2 votes:
Suggestion:

All persons purchasing a firearm are required to upload a 3-minute video to YouTube explaining their personal beliefs in the Second Amendment while holding their weapon. If they can get through 180-seconds without scaring the ever-loving buh-jesus out of the public they can be deemed 'well-regulated' and allowed to possess their weapon in perpetuity.
2013-01-11 11:30:48 PM
2 votes:
I have a suggestion. Increase spending in each and every "entitlement" program we have here in the US. More per family on welfare. More on medicare. More in every "hand out" program that you can think of. Pay people to sit home, live comfortably and with as much medication as they need even if they just need it recreationally. Decrease the desperation, increase the treatment. You'll see fewer people losing it and mowing down children or who feel like they need to make a point. Coincidentally, you'll probably see less crime in general.
2013-01-11 11:27:33 PM
2 votes:
www.patentspostgrant.com
2013-01-11 11:02:14 PM
2 votes:

david_gaithersburg: So much for the First Amendment.


That was a silly thing to post and you are a silly poster for having posted it.
2013-01-11 10:43:29 PM
2 votes:

llachlan: Can I point out the cognitive dissonance I'm registering?

The posts on this thread expressing 'good' in response to his permit being revoked are happily accepting that those are legitimate consequences for the content of his 'speech'. And even though most of you misunderstand what free speech applies to, you rightly prize it.

So riddle me this: what leads people to accept curbs and limits on the 1st Amendment, but to freak out if anyone suggests limitations on the 2nd Amendment?

/btw, my response to the permit being revoked is: good.
// my second response is to turn the interwebs to a local Tennessee feed- I expect something bad will happen.
/// Good + Bad = x, solve for x


-----------------

That's the thing - there are plenty of limits on the 2nd Amendment. Try getting your hands on a RPG, or a machine gun, or napalm. All are "arms", and all are heavily, heavily limited. This whole argument is just about the *amount* of regulation we want.

That's why it's retarded to claim that you're somehow infringing upon 2nd amendment rights if you limit "assault weapons". There is absolutely no basis in the constitution for banning a fully automatic weapon, but not a semi-automatic one. Either you claim the 2nd Amendment allows ALL arms to be held by any citizen, or you're admitting that some amount of regulation is reasonable.
2013-01-11 10:31:10 PM
2 votes:

joness0154: llachlan: Can I point out the cognitive dissonance I'm registering?

The posts on this thread expressing 'good' in response to his permit being revoked are happily accepting that those are legitimate consequences for the content of his 'speech'. And even though most of you misunderstand what free speech applies to, you rightly prize it.

So riddle me this: what leads people to accept curbs and limits on the 1st Amendment, but to freak out if anyone suggests limitations on the 2nd Amendment?

/btw, my response to the permit being revoked is: good.
// my second response is to turn the interwebs to a local Tennessee feed- I expect something bad will happen.
/// Good + Bad = x, solve for x

The problem with this arguement is that the government isn't prohibiting you from saying anything you'd like - but there are repercussions for some things you say.

You can yell fire when there's no fire in a crowded theater, but you'll be charged with something.

Similarly, murder, assault, intimidation, etc. with a firearm are already illegal. Banning certain guns would be akin to the government bleeping speech before it left your vocal cords.


That's a perfect analogy...or it would be if speech were capable of piercing human flesh and causing death, permanent paralysis, horrific disfigurement, agonizing pain, and unanswerable grief for the survivors. Close though--keep working on it.
2013-01-11 10:28:33 PM
2 votes:

dbaggins: For example: I'd consider someone a sane gun owner if they could propose something we could change that would make gun massacres less regular, or end all together. Or maybe lower the rate of gun violence in general. Something actually involving guns.


As far a massacres are concerned, I have no good ideas outside of easier access to mental health care. Concerning gun violence in general, or any violence really, that's going to take a major cultural shift and how do we affect that? As long as you have desperate, miserable people that don't see any way out of their situation, we'll see that kind of thing. Wage disparity, poverty, despair, anger and resentment boiling over, etc etc. Banning handguns hasn't made the hood any safer that I can tell, certainly hasn't stopped kids from joining gangs. I think we need to spend more time highlighting the root causes of violence rather than focusing on one of the means and hoping that solves the problem.
2013-01-11 10:03:14 PM
2 votes:
For example: I'd consider someone a sane gun owner if they could propose something we could change that would make gun massacres less regular, or end all together. Or maybe lower the rate of gun violence in general. Something actually involving guns.
2013-01-11 09:57:59 PM
2 votes:
These gun control threads must really be driving the page views. I'd swear they're multiplying when we're not looking.
2013-01-11 09:43:37 PM
2 votes:

llachlan: Can I point out the cognitive dissonance I'm registering?

The posts on this thread expressing 'good' in response to his permit being revoked are happily accepting that those are legitimate consequences for the content of his 'speech'. And even though most of you misunderstand what free speech applies to, you rightly prize it.

So riddle me this: what leads people to accept curbs and limits on the 1st Amendment, but to freak out if anyone suggests limitations on the 2nd Amendment?

/btw, my response to the permit being revoked is: good.
// my second response is to turn the interwebs to a local Tennessee feed- I expect something bad will happen.
/// Good + Bad = x, solve for x


Yawn, you can't sell fire in a crowded theater, you can't invite others to violence. Your rights end where mine begin. Stop being intellectually dishonest.
2013-01-11 09:37:21 PM
2 votes:

llachlan: Can I point out the cognitive dissonance I'm registering?

The posts on this thread expressing 'good' in response to his permit being revoked are happily accepting that those are legitimate consequences for the content of his 'speech'. And even though most of you misunderstand what free speech applies to, you rightly prize it.

So riddle me this: what leads people to accept curbs and limits on the 1st Amendment, but to freak out if anyone suggests limitations on the 2nd Amendment?

/btw, my response to the permit being revoked is: good.
// my second response is to turn the interwebs to a local Tennessee feed- I expect something bad will happen.
/// Good + Bad = x, solve for x


Last I checked a threat on the life of another person or to society as a whole is a fairly reasonable area to legislate in regards to an individual's right to free speech.
2013-01-11 09:25:42 PM
2 votes:
What a major, major douche bag.
"Stop sending me emails and calling me."
Somebody alert 4Chan.
2013-01-11 09:23:27 PM
2 votes:

gadian: So, is he going to live up to his word now? Start killing people? They did take his guns.


Ah, no.

Revoked his conceal carry permit. I'm sure he's still got a sh*tload of guns.
2013-01-11 09:20:48 PM
2 votes:
And all it took was his youtube video getting on every major news broadcast and cable news twenty times a day.

I'm just glad there aren't any more out there like this guy.
2013-01-11 09:15:53 PM
2 votes:
Good. People with mental issues, or those making threats, should NOT have guns. At least in this case, the system works.
2013-01-11 09:13:12 PM
2 votes:
Quit shooting up the place, you jackhats.
2013-01-11 09:02:18 PM
2 votes:
But they let him keep his guns, he just has to promise not to carry them.  Psychopaths are known for their scrupulous honesty.
2013-01-11 08:58:17 PM
2 votes:
Well, they're after your guns, dawg, just like you predicted.

Better start that war with the government, needle dick!  Just try and make it last long enough for me to microwave some popcorn.  100 to ` says you don't make it.
2013-01-11 07:32:05 PM
2 votes:
SEE LIBS!! WE TOLD YOU SO!  THE GRABBING GUN GRABBERS ARE GRABBILY COMING TO GRAB YOUR GUNS!!

1776 WILL COMMENCE AGAIN!
2013-01-11 07:27:08 PM
2 votes:
I love how he made a new video telling people to quit "sending him legal advice."  The irony:  no competent lawyer would send a random internet person unsolicited legal advice.
2013-01-12 01:02:46 PM
1 votes:

Skyrmion: PunGent: That's why I support gun ownership, not of handguns, but of weapons similar to whatever our military is currently using...these days, that means an AR15, for example, is not only reasonable, but just about the MOST reasonable weapon for a "civilian" to own, outside of a hunting rifle for feeding his family.

I have to agree with the idea that if the, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" part of the second amendment is taken to have any legal meaning, it would imply that a militia-appropriate weapon like the AR15 should be the most protected gun, and maybe handguns less so. The "assault weapons" ban has it backwards.


We have well regulated militia. National Guard, State Police, etc. A bunch of mom's basement dwellers are not well regulated.
2013-01-12 12:45:00 PM
1 votes:

Corvus: Exactly they were saying "It's not I am against every gun law but this one is stupid because of..." So I asked them what would you support then? Of course they couldn't give me a single restriction.


I can think of a few changes to existing gun-related law that might have some effect (e.g. better reporting of data from the states to NICS, making NICS background checks available for private sales, etc.), but overall I think the issue is a "people problem" not a "gun problem" so I look at the issue a bit differently and don't really think that more restrictions on guns (e.g. magazine restrictions, certain types of guns, etc.) are really going to be effective. There's a difference between not proposing an additional restriction on guns and not proposing potentially workable solutions.

- I'd like to see personal drug use treated like a public health issue rather than a crime, thus freeing resources to go after drug traffickers and gangs.
- I'd like to to see universal healthcare (physical and mental).
- I'd like to see a really heavy crackdown on straw purchasers, rogue FFLs who supply them, and gun traffickers. Nail those bastards to the wall.
- As mentioned above, improvements to NICS.
- I'd like to see a lot more economic, social, and educational assistance programs made available to low-income people and neighborhoods. Something like what worked in NYC seems like a good idea.
- Combined with the above, I'd like to see a lot more of a crackdown on violent gangs.
- Better community-police relations: in crime-ridden neighborhoods the residents and the police have a fairly hostile relationship. Improving this will help residents feel more comfortable calling the police and the police will have a better handle on who and where the criminals are so they can be stopped.
- Making various opportunities available to prisoners would be an good thing: rather than letting prisons be a metaphorical breeding ground for violent criminals, I'd like to see more resources dedicated to improving the lives of prisoners. For example, job training, education, social counseling, etc. so inmates can be better prepared for the outside world once they're released. Post-release services like job placement help would be useful as well.

I've been suggesting such improvements to my legislators for years under the principle of "a rising tide lifts all ships" (healthy, stable, prosperous people don't really commit violent crimes) but evidently not many people are so keen on paying the taxes necessary to fund such measures. I, for one, am perfectly happy to pay significantly higher taxes if it means that we can live in a civilized society. I just think that restricting certain guns or gun parts isn't really going to address the root issues behind violent crime.

/likes to think he's a pretty reasonable guy
//studies physics, not criminology, so I may be way off-base but these seem to be pretty reasonable proposals
2013-01-12 12:21:33 PM
1 votes:

born_yesterday: Is this ironic? I can never tell.


It is ironic when I think it is ironic.  At it isn't ironic when the other thinks it is ironic.  That is the general Fark rule.
2013-01-12 09:47:46 AM
1 votes:
You zany Americans are always good for a laugh.

Thanks, all of you.
2013-01-12 09:30:14 AM
1 votes:
I'm no lawyer--I just play one on TV--but it seems to me this guy's statements really do constitute "terroristic threats."

Link

He should be in jail.
2013-01-12 08:34:26 AM
1 votes:
This is more a lesson in keeping your tough guy nonsense off of youtube.
2013-01-12 07:07:23 AM
1 votes:

phenn: Conversely, my not owning one almost guarantees that a violent criminal with one will end my life.


Gee, why is it, then, that the UK has such a lower rate of deaths from assaults by firearm than the US?
2013-01-12 06:13:12 AM
1 votes:
The simple fact is that gun control laws as they stand now restrict law-abiding gun owners much more than they do violent criminals. There is no law you can create that will suddenly make violent criminals decide to stop being violent or using firearms illegally. All we can do is place greater penalties on those who do commit crimes with firearms, and work to remove firearms from the hands of criminals whenever possible.

Thought for the day: How about we stop putting people in prison for non-violent crimes like Marijuana possession, and start putting those who commit crimes with firearms there longer? I'm all for doubling the current penalties for anyone who uses a firearm in a crime, and/or giving Life without Parole to anyone who commits a violent crime with a firearm. Get these people off of the street, and at the same time stop filling the jails with non-violent drug offenders.
2013-01-12 05:17:17 AM
1 votes:

Loaded Six String: The weapon does not factor into whether a person is violent or not


Precisely why gun control is a stupid idea.

Thank you for finally putting this to bed.
2013-01-12 05:03:18 AM
1 votes:

phenn: You're not helping your side of the debate.


then explain to me how not having something doesn't decrease your likelihood to use it, either violently or as intended.

that isn't intellectual honesty, that's logical consistency. if you don't have something, yes, yes you've affected your ability to use that thing - either as instructed, or not.
2013-01-12 03:31:16 AM
1 votes:

david_gaithersburg: So much for the First Amendment.


Threatening to shoot people is not covered.
2013-01-12 03:07:19 AM
1 votes:
This will happen for a while until the really guntastic farkwits get the memo that it's time to "go dark" and plan for when Maobama cancels the elections in 2016. Then they'll go luddite and avoid youtube. Of course, they'll still have their email forwards... I mean... uh... Patriot newsletters and they'll crank up their privacy settings on Facebook.
2013-01-12 02:55:21 AM
1 votes:

Lsherm: or you, BronyMedic, the M107 (M82) is a weapon I don't think should be sold to civilians, even if it hasn't been used in a rampage yet.   I'm sure it's fun to shoot, but it's dangerously close to what I call the "bazooka doctrine of LSherm" where a weapon is so powerful it shouldn't be in the hands of common people.  My main beef with Uberdeity was his claim that anyone would use that rifle for hunting, which was disingenious, and his penchant for posting "scary" pictures of rifles, because that's a common tactic of people who don't understand guns.  It's like idiots who think a 1975 Corvette is a sports car because of how it looks.

The M107 is actually a scary gun.  This isn't:


Sig 552 Civilian Trigger Group? Hardly scary.

So, uh. What are you home defending with a 30 round magazine? Or Hunting? You got that many coyotes and varmints on your lawn? Didn't Call of Medal: Duty Warfare teach you that hip firing was a bad thing? Defend to me the need for civilians to own a high capacity magazine who's only legitimate use is to reduce the need to reload during firefights?
2013-01-12 02:52:05 AM
1 votes:

doglover: This is a fine example of existing legislation getting the job done.


Indeed. Guy mouthed off and made threats to harm others, he shouldn't have a concealed handgun permit, it is as simple as that. I doubt it will stop this jagoff from carrying a firearm on his person, though (2ND AMENDMENT! I GOTS MAH RIGHTS!), and I hope there is a friendly neighborhood police officer who stops said jagoff for perfectly legitimate reasons, finds said concealed weapon on his person, and enforces still more existing legislation on him.
2013-01-12 02:43:44 AM
1 votes:

HaywoodJablonski: Seriously? This guy's video rant was a direct result of Obama (via Biden) threatening executive order to bring about gun control.


No, the guy's video rant was a direct result of being dropped on his head when he was three. Obama himself hasn't "threatened" to take away anyone's guns. The idea of Federal agents going around to everyone's home to collect their guns isn't even on the table.

Although I agree that Obama is the greatest troll President ever (with Clinton in second), I think this is one issue he's absolutely serious about.
2013-01-12 01:49:13 AM
1 votes:

James F. Campbell: joness0154: Come play along with us, provide something useful.

Here you go, gun nut. Proof that gun control doesn't work:

[home.comcast.net image 600x460]


Did you control for the fact that the UK has better health care?
2013-01-12 01:31:18 AM
1 votes:
Firearms deaths in the USA in 2012: About 31,500
Firearms deaths in the UK in 2012: About 50

/ today's gun nut thread is brought to you by the letters C, C, W and the IQ potato
2013-01-12 01:31:07 AM
1 votes:

joness0154: Come play along with us, provide something useful.


Here you go, gun nut. Proof that gun control doesn't work:

home.comcast.net
2013-01-12 12:47:07 AM
1 votes:
I don't wanna piss on anybody's badass cred touchstones, but, uh if you are dealing with somebody with the following characteristics ▼

1.) - Shaved head
2.) - Spinach chin goatee
3.) - Bowhard
4.) - Has more guns than the national guard
5.) - Huge motorcycle that runs like sh*t
6.) - Lots of ink
7.) - Almost never smiles unless it's to smirk at the misfortune of others

You're probably dealing with a violent douchebag who never quite past the 8 year old schoolyard bully phase who likes to go out and "see who wants to start some sh*t". This person may be on home made methedrine and or anabolic steroids.

Avoid this person.
2013-01-12 12:38:44 AM
1 votes:

joness0154: dbaggins: What I find fun is that every reference to UK gun statistics at sites like gunpolicy.org all stop in 2009.

The ball is in your court now. I'd love to see your statistics that show gun crime has decreased in the UK since the last ban was instituted.

Go ahead. A month of TF on me if you find it.


I will take that free month thank you: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/ research-statistics/crime-research/hosb0212/

Again. Stop reading newspapers like the Daily fail and learn to find the actual data source. You'll go far.
2013-01-12 12:31:36 AM
1 votes:

Amos Quito: Dansker: Amos Quito:

US violent crime rates have declined, while "gun free" UK violent crime rates have skyrocketed.

Pawn takes queen.

Your move,

[img.photobucket.com image 817x650]


So you're saying that the Telegraph article was a LIE?

A complete, bald faced LIE??? If that be the case, they should all be keel hauled, don't you think?


Nah, they're just quoting the Conservatives, and partisan political lies are to be expected.

But before we force them to walk the plank, perhaps I should ask you to kindly link to the cite of your source.

Would that be too much to ask?


No, here it is.


In the meanwhile, don't hold your breath waiting for a response from me.

it's night night time.


Ban
Ban Ban
Ban Ban Ban
BANBAN BAN BAN BAN BAN BAN BAN BAN BAN BAN BAN !!!!!1!!


You seem perfectly rational, and I look forward to resuming this discourse... *smiles politely, backs away slowly*
2013-01-12 12:29:08 AM
1 votes:

Aquapope: llachlan: As an outsider (who supports your right to bear arms), I am honestly surprised at how reactions to curbing various amendments differ (and my questions apply as much to the 5th, 6th and 7th as to the 1st versus the 2nd).

I'm an "insider" - born and raised in Kansas, and I don't get it either. But, I wasn't raised around guns. My dad was West Point, but got rid of the guns when I was under 2 yrs old. No guns since. I've never been enamored of guns, never played with them, never saw them as much more than a chemical way to throw a couple ounces of metal very fast in order to tear something up. I've only shot guns once, a 30.06 rifle and some kind of pistol. I'm actually a good shot with the rifle, but I really didn't care a whole lot.
But I have several friends who grew up shooting and loading their own rounds, and getting 13th birthday gifts of pistols or rifles. They were into guns like some kids are into engines or planes or football. Oddly, only one of them hunted, the rest were just into guns.

As to opposition to restrictions on the 1st, 5th, 6th and 7th amendments: Most people don't know what those are. Most people think the 1st is: "You can say whatever you want" and maybe "You can worship your Christian god however you want", and that's about it. 5th, 6th and 7th are just things nobody needs to know. BUT the 2nd! That one means "you can have any kind of gun you want all the time anywhere and anybody trying to restrict that is a commie bastard and deserves to be shot". At least, that's what most of my relatives think.


To add just a little bit to this: the second amendment has a certain iconic status with certain demographics that other amendments just don't have. You don't have a whole lot of people walking around in their daily lives thinking about how proud they are to be exercising their 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc. amendment rights. I think a lot of these people ("people of the land," let us call them) actually have the notion that the second amendment was written just for them and their gun-related hobbies, because they're just that important to the stability of the country. You can imagine the inflated sense of self-importance having your "own" constitutional amendment can cause, and how protective such people would be of this amendment.
2013-01-12 12:28:30 AM
1 votes:

david_gaithersburg: You sound like you went to public school.


Don't you have a religion thread to feel persecuted in somewhere?
2013-01-12 12:27:46 AM
1 votes:

propasaurus: ratagorda: So Buck Angel got "his" guns taken away?

Buck Angel's problems go further than his 2nd Amendment rights.

Congratulations. You've added nothing to this conversation.


Is that any different than any of your shiat posting?
2013-01-12 12:26:37 AM
1 votes:

joness0154: The UK statistics involving gun crime include:


but I didn't cite "gun crime" in my reference. I cited morbidity. You didn't look in the database I provided the link for, did you?

I don't know why *you* switched to "gun crime".

gun deaths is a valid stand-in for several gun violence stats.
2013-01-12 12:04:54 AM
1 votes:

joness0154: Consider our culture for a second....in the late 1800s nearly every adult male owned a firearm. I saw a statistic that showed nearly 50% of households today have a firearm of some sort.

With firearms being so ingrained in our culture, along with them being included as part of the Bill of Rights, it's no surprise to me.


I'm not so sure that every one of two households has a gun. Probably more like "99 of 100 households have no gun, but that 1 guy? He's got 50 guns in his collection."
2013-01-12 12:03:46 AM
1 votes:
encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
2013-01-12 12:03:41 AM
1 votes:

Amos Quito:

US violent crime rates have declined, while "gun free" UK violent crime rates have skyrocketed.

Pawn takes queen.

Your move,


img.photobucket.com
2013-01-12 12:01:01 AM
1 votes:
also keep in mind there were a bunch of riots in the UK in this time, with hundreds of violence charges laid per day for several periods.

of which, nobody was shot, and almost nobody died.

unlike when we have riots. the LA riots for instance. 52 dead by firearms.
2013-01-12 12:00:08 AM
1 votes:

llachlan: Can I point out the cognitive dissonance I'm registering?

The posts on this thread expressing 'good' in response to his permit being revoked are happily accepting that those are legitimate consequences for the content of his 'speech'. And even though most of you misunderstand what free speech applies to, you rightly prize it.

So riddle me this: what leads people to accept curbs and limits on the 1st Amendment, but to freak out if anyone suggests limitations on the 2nd Amendment?

/btw, my response to the permit being revoked is: good.
// my second response is to turn the interwebs to a local Tennessee feed- I expect something bad will happen.
/// Good + Bad = x, solve for x


A "consequence" is not a "curb or limit" on freedom of speech, first of all. A "curb or limit" would be something that stopped you from speaking in the first place. Secondly, the law does not say "Speak about something and have your guns taken away." What happened here is that a person spoke about using weapons in a way that made the state assess whether or not his use of them might be a threat to public safety and security--and then revoked not his right to SPEAK, but his right to continue to OWN AND USE WEAPONS. He can still run his mouth as much as he likes and nobody can stop him.

Free speech and your right to use it also doesn't mean what you seem to think it does either. It is the right to say what you wish free of government restraint on that speech--period. It does not mean that you can say anything you want and not have the potential effects of that speech evaluated, as happened here; or that you can say anything you want and not have restrictions placed on where, when and how you say it; or that you can say anything you want and expect to be free of social repercussions (which also happened here).

Free speech merely means the government cannot pass a law saying "It is illegal in and of itself to talk about X and here is the penalty for doing so." Dear Mr. Yeager cannot be sentenced to prison or even given a nominal fine for saying "Let's start a war!" He can't even have his guns taken away for saying it--but if the authorities feel that he presents a "clear and present danger" of using his guns in a threatening manner, then they can suspend his right to legally use guns for the greater good of society. Look up the decisions in Chemerinsky and Brandenburg if you have any doubts, and take a look at a state's "police powers".

Also, bear in mind this little factoid: The 1st only restrains GOVERNMENT action. All of us here cheering on this douchebag's punishment are private citizens. Your right to free speech is irrelevant between private parties. I absolutely have the right to tell another private person to STFU in a private situation; you HAVE NO RIGHTS that are enforceable between you and me as regards your right to "free speech". So if we want to applaud his idiot remarks landing him in hot water, well, that's not a restraint of his freedom of speech, nor is it our "acceptance of curbs on free speech." It's just our acknowledgement that actions have consequences, which apparently he didn't realize.
2013-01-11 11:53:59 PM
1 votes:

Amos Quito: I call bullshiat.


Call it what you want.  I don't really care.

Go ahead and take it to court.  Grab a handgun, go outside and threaten to shoot people.

When you get arrested, tell them you were exercising your 1st and 2nd Amendment rights.  See how long it takes before every lawyer in the world stops laughing.

I'll buy you a beer when you get out of prison.
2013-01-11 11:52:05 PM
1 votes:
Sock Ruh Tease:
i.imgur.com

Jesus christ, does any of these people have any farking clue what Fight Club was ACTUALLY about?!

CSB:

I was once in an English class and we were talking about movies and Fight Club came up. The professor declared his disdain for the flick cause he thought it was all about tough guys beating the shiat out of each other. I calmly tried to explain it was actually about the loss of the male identity due to modern cultural changes compared to previous generations, as well as a social commentary on our consumption-based behavior and a rebuke of corporations and advertising.

"Yeah, but it was just so violent!"

*FACEPALM*

/How in the fark someone like that got a doctorate and tenure is beyond me.
2013-01-11 11:49:56 PM
1 votes:

joness0154: dbaggins: joness0154: dbaggins: What I find fun is that every reference to UK gun statistics at sites like gunpolicy.org all stop in 2009.

The ball is in your court now. I'd love to see your statistics that show gun crime has decreased in the UK since the last ban was instituted.

Go ahead. A month of TF on me if you find it.


OK, I can put up

http://data.euro.who.int/dmdb/

go look it up if you don't believe it. UK 2011 has 0.25 firearm related deaths per 100,000 people. Down almost every year since 2009.

Gun crime and gun deaths are related, but not the same thing. Try again.
And start in 1998, like I said, the year the ban was instituted. Look at the long term trend.


We've had more mass shootings in the past 2 months than the UK has had in the past 14 years. That's a long-term trend.
2013-01-11 11:44:16 PM
1 votes:

joness0154: dbaggins: Amos Quito: Well then, why don't you just trot on out there and post a (credible) link showing us that the violent crime rate in the UK (where they're currently restricting BUTTER KNIFE SALES) has subsided during the interim, and we'll all feel much better.

Oh, Cheerio! off I go and with the magic of Google discover the UK hasn't had a gun massacre since 1996, The Dunblane School Massacre. People got pretty upset. They passed some laws.

This is not the only country to have this sequence of events.

Your turn.

Wrong, again. Let's try 2010 for starters.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jun/02/cumbria-shootings-slaughter- c ountryside-derrick-bird

Seriously - you need to do research before spouting your mouth. You're making yourself look dumb.


Wow, you found a whole 'nother shooting spree to take place in England since 1996. Just find a few hundred more and you'll have something resembling evidence that England's "failed" gun control can be used cogently as an argument against similar measures in the US.
2013-01-11 11:38:45 PM
1 votes:
Gun control simply doesn't work. For example, look at all the classrooms full of kids and theaters full of people taken out en masse by the widely abundant hand grenades available to anyone. If we took hand grenades from law abiding citizens, the bad guys would still have hand grenades and we would be defenseless.
2013-01-11 11:34:42 PM
1 votes:

orclover: Thats a very optimistic number. Personally I think we would be better off dumping zoloft into the water supplies of every city.


I remember something like that being tried before:

intotheblu.com
2013-01-11 11:29:39 PM
1 votes:

Amos Quito: Lionel Mandrake: david_gaithersburg: So much for the First Amendment.

You mean, so much for what you imagine the First Amendment to be.


What should (s)he imagine it to be?


It's been covered, but, simply: The right to free speech is not absolute.  You cannot incite riots, you cannot libel or slander, you cannot harass or threaten.  This is not new.

Also, you do not have a right to carry a handgun, it is a privilege.  That is why they issue permits.

He had a privilege suspended (and he can appeal that decision).

He did not have a right suppressed.
2013-01-11 11:25:15 PM
1 votes:

Amos Quito: UK is violent crime capital of Europe

Sweet as roses now.


oh goody, another reference from 2009.

often roses don't smell so sweet after several years past their sell-by date.
2013-01-11 11:25:00 PM
1 votes:
Idiots like Yeager love to scream about their rights, but they really don't get the whole responsibility thing that goes along with that.
2013-01-11 11:18:07 PM
1 votes:

david_gaithersburg: So much for the First Amendment.


You mean, so much for what you imagine the First Amendment to be.
2013-01-11 11:10:09 PM
1 votes:
Koodz:
I'm not sure that being "CEO" of four guys running a shooting range and giving seminars to survivalists counts as rich, unless some other article has done some research on that.

If he IS rich (and Tennessee Rich is barely six figures) then I withdraw my statement.


Indeed, I may have read too much into the articles on CEO salaries and I assumed if this guy was getting attention, he must be important.  That seems incorrect.
2013-01-11 11:09:27 PM
1 votes:
I love a story with a happy ending.
2013-01-11 11:04:00 PM
1 votes:
So... Someone help me out here. Is this clown a "Good Guy With A Gun" or a "Bad Guy With A Gun"?
2013-01-11 10:56:19 PM
1 votes:

dookdookdook: SEE LIBS!! WE TOLD YOU SO!  THE GRABBING GUN GRABBERS ARE GRABBILY COMING TO GRAB YOUR GUNS!!

1776 WILL COMMENCE AGAIN!


Bullshiat. They mean 1861. I'm all for 2nd amendment rights, but half of these a$$holes are just looking for an excuse.

If you make threats like that, you have no business owning a gun.
2013-01-11 10:43:49 PM
1 votes:

Lochsteppe: joness0154: llachlan: Can I point out the cognitive dissonance I'm registering?

The posts on this thread expressing 'good' in response to his permit being revoked are happily accepting that those are legitimate consequences for the content of his 'speech'. And even though most of you misunderstand what free speech applies to, you rightly prize it.

So riddle me this: what leads people to accept curbs and limits on the 1st Amendment, but to freak out if anyone suggests limitations on the 2nd Amendment?

/btw, my response to the permit being revoked is: good.
// my second response is to turn the interwebs to a local Tennessee feed- I expect something bad will happen.
/// Good + Bad = x, solve for x

The problem with this arguement is that the government isn't prohibiting you from saying anything you'd like - but there are repercussions for some things you say.

You can yell fire when there's no fire in a crowded theater, but you'll be charged with something.

Similarly, murder, assault, intimidation, etc. with a firearm are already illegal. Banning certain guns would be akin to the government bleeping speech before it left your vocal cords.

That's a perfect analogy...or it would be if speech were capable of piercing human flesh and causing death, permanent paralysis, horrific disfigurement, agonizing pain, and unanswerable grief for the survivors. Close though--keep working on it.


Apparently speech can cause death or why would yelling fire in a crowded theatre be something punishable? Because it would anoy the other patrons or because a massacre would happen as people got trampled on? Whether 26 kids get shot to death or 26 kids get trampled to death makes no difference.
2013-01-11 10:43:09 PM
1 votes:

ThisIsntMe: I feel much safer.

/Just Sayin'


I don't. This paranoid, delusional farkwit now has more reason to believe the evil gub'mint is taking away his rights - and he still has his guns. This makes it more likely that he will kill innocent people who are only interested in protecting society from his insanity.
2013-01-11 10:41:07 PM
1 votes:
ABOUT DAMN TIME.

Camden, TN is full of crazy, too. They're one of the big meth production cities in West-Middle Tennessee - the other being Waverly. (Waverly is also a sundown town, even today.)
2013-01-11 10:37:22 PM
1 votes:

Lochsteppe: joness0154: llachlan: Can I point out the cognitive dissonance I'm registering?

The posts on this thread expressing 'good' in response to his permit being revoked are happily accepting that those are legitimate consequences for the content of his 'speech'. And even though most of you misunderstand what free speech applies to, you rightly prize it.

So riddle me this: what leads people to accept curbs and limits on the 1st Amendment, but to freak out if anyone suggests limitations on the 2nd Amendment?

/btw, my response to the permit being revoked is: good.
// my second response is to turn the interwebs to a local Tennessee feed- I expect something bad will happen.
/// Good + Bad = x, solve for x

The problem with this arguement is that the government isn't prohibiting you from saying anything you'd like - but there are repercussions for some things you say.

You can yell fire when there's no fire in a crowded theater, but you'll be charged with something.

Similarly, murder, assault, intimidation, etc. with a firearm are already illegal. Banning certain guns would be akin to the government bleeping speech before it left your vocal cords.

That's a perfect analogy...or it would be if speech were capable of piercing human flesh and causing death, permanent paralysis, horrific disfigurement, agonizing pain, and unanswerable grief for the survivors. Close though--keep working on it.


The point must've gone completely over your head.

The only limitation on the 1st amendment is that there are consequences for misuse.

The same can be currently said about the 2nd.
2013-01-11 10:33:59 PM
1 votes:
The funny thing?

Tennessee is almost overwhelmingly filled with Republicans, so even then, there was a problem with this guy. It has nothing to do with politics once you start saying you'll kill people.
2013-01-11 10:28:27 PM
1 votes:

globalwarmingpraiser: Good. I am a CCW supporter and a pro gun person. I even agree that the 2nd amendment is to be a chexk on government. But actions have consequences. If you choose to threaten or wage war against the US government you will provoke a response. That response will most likely involve your death. The Israeli's are respond in manner similar to the US government.


When you declare war on the government, the government declares war on you.
2013-01-11 10:25:29 PM
1 votes:
pjmedia.com

Threatening people isn't being a responsible gun owner.
2013-01-11 10:20:58 PM
1 votes:

FourBlackBars: This is a 2nd Amendment solution: Nutjob was "Well Regulated" right out of his guns.

He should be happy. The 2nd Amendment at work right here. He's a huge fan. Maybe he shows emotion differently than some because he joy seems a lot like anger and endless butthurt too me.


If we could well-regulate without the NRA and the other gun groups (and apparently the NRA is less crazy than some of them) having an explosive diarrhea tantrum every time, we wouldn't be in this pickle.
2013-01-11 10:15:49 PM
1 votes:

FourBlackBars: This is a 2nd Amendment solution: Nutjob was "Well Regulated" right out of his guns.

He should be happy. The 2nd Amendment at work right here. He's a huge fan. Maybe he shows emotion differently than some because he joy seems a lot like anger and endless butthurt too me.


He still has his weapons. Only now he'll be violating the law when he carries them - and he will. Jebus help any cop who stops him for any reason.
2013-01-11 10:13:41 PM
1 votes:
i.imgur.com

GUNBELIEVABLEZ
2013-01-11 09:55:55 PM
1 votes:

llachlan: Can I point out the cognitive dissonance I'm registering?

The posts on this thread expressing 'good' in response to his permit being revoked are happily accepting that those are legitimate consequences for the content of his 'speech'. And even though most of you misunderstand what free speech applies to, you rightly prize it.

So riddle me this: what leads people to accept curbs and limits on the 1st Amendment, but to freak out if anyone suggests limitations on the 2nd Amendment?

/btw, my response to the permit being revoked is: good.
// my second response is to turn the interwebs to a local Tennessee feed- I expect something bad will happen.
/// Good + Bad = x, solve for x


x=42, or beer. Or 42 beer. Which ever comes last.
2013-01-11 09:55:28 PM
1 votes:

FormlessOne: Dear Mr. Yeager,

You're not helping.

Sincerely,
The rest of us that support the right to bear arms.

Seriously, it's nutcases like this that make people afraid of gun owners. There are lots and lots of responsible, kind, sensible, intelligent folks out there that happen to own guns. They're not a stereotype - they're just gun owners. Then, there's this moron, the kind of guy that stuffs himself into the stereotype, and then runs his mouth off, validating the very stereotype that makes other gun owners wince.


I used to have a sort of casual view of gun owners. I sort of didn't know who in my life was a gun owner. never came up.

Now.... I'm starting to think that gun owners are not as rational as they think they are. I've listened to people that I had assumed were pretty with it say some awfully dumb things in the last few months.

These aren't the way-out-there nutcases. These are regular gun owners from a casual inspection. I'm not sure I trust their judgment.

In short, even the run-of-the-mill gun owners are not impressing me all that much. Some are family and I'll just have to suck it up, others I probably will be just seeing less of. The group is self-selecting, so that is probably part of it, but I also think artifact itself influences how people think.
2013-01-11 09:54:40 PM
1 votes:
i.imgur.com
2013-01-11 09:49:16 PM
1 votes:
I have to admit, this is a case where gun laws worked.
zeg
2013-01-11 09:48:56 PM
1 votes:

Lionel Mandrake: You don't have the right to make threats of violence.

Rights are not absolute, they do have limits and those limits can be revised.

This includes the 2nd Amendment.


Exactly. Making a video where you say, "It is unconscionable and I will stand up to defend my unfettered right to possess firearms, and I urge other citizens to do the same," should not have any legal consequences. Making a video where you say, "I will kill people if..." is entirely different.
2013-01-11 09:47:03 PM
1 votes:
i309.photobucket.com
2013-01-11 09:45:31 PM
1 votes:

Sherman Potter: violentsalvation: I don't think you'll find many pro-gun people on fark who have a problem with this.

If you frequent any of the gun boards on the internet, you'll find that this guy is pretty-much universally reviled. He's a major d-bag that even the gun community doesn't want to associate with.

You folks trying to portray him as a spokesman for the gun community need to find a narrower brush.


Portraying him as such better fits their agenda and preconceived notions about gun owners. They can say, "See? That's a gun owner! That's who doesn't agree with us, that's your opposition!" If they reduced the entire gun rights crowd to a 2 dimensional caricature of a whack shiat hillbilly, they make it easier for themselves to dismiss out of hand any dialogue coming out of that corner. You don't debate people like that, you tell them what's best because they're too ignorant to see it for themselves. If they weren't, they'd already agree with you wouldn't they?
2013-01-11 09:42:35 PM
1 votes:

llachlan: Can I point out the cognitive dissonance I'm registering?

The posts on this thread expressing 'good' in response to his permit being revoked are happily accepting that those are legitimate consequences for the content of his 'speech'. And even though most of you misunderstand what free speech applies to, you rightly prize it.

So riddle me this: what leads people to accept curbs and limits on the 1st Amendment, but to freak out if anyone suggests limitations on the 2nd Amendment?

/btw, my response to the permit being revoked is: good.
// my second response is to turn the interwebs to a local Tennessee feed- I expect something bad will happen.
/// Good + Bad = x, solve for x


ALL amendments are not absolute.  A threat to shoot people is not protected by the 1st amendment.   The right to bear arms is not absolute , for example criminals and ex cons are not allowed to have them (Vary in state, of course)
2013-01-11 09:37:10 PM
1 votes:
Ya, no concealed weapon permit is going to stop a combat vet/PMC with access to full auto long arms (real assault weapons for you slow people) from doing something bad.

I hear that criminals also carry their illegal weapons concealed, with no permit.
2013-01-11 09:33:00 PM
1 votes:

NotSoFunkyPhantom: I guess he could shoot me if he wants. I can't afford my own gun and I'm ready to call it a life.


Hmm. You okay? That last bit is worrisome.
2013-01-11 09:29:42 PM
1 votes:

propasaurus: I bet he considers himself a safe, sane, rational and responsible gun owner.


No, that would be the millions who are only starting to speak up now. It might take a while but the volume will get loud enough to be heard around the world.
2013-01-11 09:28:32 PM
1 votes:
Good call.
2013-01-11 09:24:33 PM
1 votes:

Sherman Potter: violentsalvation: I don't think you'll find many pro-gun people on fark who have a problem with this.

If you frequent any of the gun boards on the internet, you'll find that this guy is pretty-much universally reviled. He's a major d-bag that even the gun community doesn't want to associate with.

You folks trying to portray him as a spokesman for the gun community need to find a narrower brush.


Oh I have no doubt that much of the "gun community" considers him irresponsible. The problem is, none of them are willing to support a law that would take his guns away.
2013-01-11 09:24:22 PM
1 votes:
I guess he could shoot me if he wants. I can't afford my own gun and I'm ready to call it a life.
2013-01-11 09:23:47 PM
1 votes:
Holy blap, being a raging, reactionary jackinape has consequences? Damn, that makes me feel better about the world on a not insignificant level.
2013-01-11 09:21:17 PM
1 votes:
Surprise! You threaten to shoot people, you get in trouble!
2013-01-11 09:21:17 PM
1 votes:

Sherman Potter: violentsalvation: I don't think you'll find many pro-gun people on fark who have a problem with this.

If you frequent any of the gun boards on the internet, you'll find that this guy is pretty-much universally reviled. He's a major d-bag that even the gun community doesn't want to associate with.

You folks trying to portray him as a spokesman for the gun community need to find a narrower brush.


But... But... ALEX JONES!
2013-01-11 09:20:47 PM
1 votes:
So, is he going to live up to his word now? Start killing people? They did take his guns.
2013-01-11 09:18:01 PM
1 votes:
haha-nelson.gif
 
Displayed 115 of 115 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report